DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitations in the last three clauses (lines 12-19) all indicate that the particles are configured for certain functions. However, the particles are not part of the claimed invention, and the particles do not require any specific properties to be capable of the claimed functions. Alternatively, the claims should read that the collection device is configured such that the particles can perform the claimed functions (for instance, “the collection device is configured to suck external particles into the barrel along with the air the external particles into relatively heavy particles and light particles by centrifugal force as the external particles rotate along an inner surface of the barrel part”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “opened in a predetermined diameter” is not understood to describe any specific structure, and should be changed to “opened at one end” (or at a lower end).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 10-2127958) in view of Kim (KR 10-2304348; to be referred to hereinafter as D2).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a microplastic collection device utilizing a cyclone, comprising: a cylindrical barrel part (300) accommodating a first suction fan and a first suction fan drive part (340) at an upper end thereof; a cyclone (330) configured to suck in microplastics; and a microplastic capture pipe (202) coupled to an upper end outer circumferential surface of the barrel part, wherein the external particles are configured to be sucked into the barrel part along with air, and then separated into relatively heavy particles and light particles by centrifugal force as the external particles rotate along an inner surface of the barrel part, wherein the light particles are configured to be sucked into the microplastic suction pipe and gather in the microplastic capture pipe, and wherein the heavy particles are configured to gather at a lower end of the barrel part (at 310). However, Kim appears to merely show the cyclone (330) schematically, but fails to disclose specific structure that would actually function as a cyclonic separator, as disclosed. D2 discloses another similar microplastic collection device, also having cyclonic separators (20 and 30), and teaches that the separators both include commonly known structure including a microplastic suction pipe (27a and 32, respectively, with 27a being the more common single cyclone suction pipe structure) installed at an interior center of the barrel part to communicate with the first suction fan and configured to suck in microplastics; a suction pipe (26c and 31b/31c, respectively) spaced at a predetermined distance from the upper end of the barrel part, coupled to an outer circumferential surface of the barrel part to communicate with an interior of the barrel part, and configured to suck in external particles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the common and more detailed structure to the disclosed “cyclone” of Kim, as taught by D2, to actually provide the cyclonic separation function taught by Kim.
Regarding claim 2, both Kim and D2 further discloses that a lower portion of the barrel part is formed in a shape in which a diameter gradually decreases downward (at walls 320 of Kim, 25b and either of 32a or 33a of D2, respectively), and wherein a discharge pipe (310 of Kim, 28 and 34 of D2, respectively) opened at a lower end is coupled to the lower end of the barrel part.
Regarding claim 4, Kim further discloses that the suction pipe comprises: a second suction fan (480) and a second suction fan drive part coupled to an outer end and installed near one end coupled to the suction pipe, and at the other end thereof a distal suction pipe (410) in communication with the second suction fan and configured to suck in external particles.
Regarding claim 5, Kim and D2 both further disclose another suction pipe (between 200 and 300 of Kim, and 41 of D2), for connecting the back pack carried portion to the hand held portion, which is well known in the art of operator supported back pack style vacuums, to be flexible to allow the user to move the hand held portion relative to their own body and the back pack portion mounted thereto. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the additional suction pipe disclosed by Kim and D2 that is coupled between the suction pipe and the distal suction pipe from a soft or elastic material to be bendable, as is well known in the art.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 10-2127958) in view of Kim (KR 10-2304348; to be referred to hereinafter as D2), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Krantz (4,581,050).
Kim and D2 both disclose a reticulate microplastic capture part (402 of Kim, 35 of D2) coupled to an outer end and configured to receive fluid from an interior of the microplastic capture pipe and particles contained in the fluid, but neither disclose a filter element. Krantz discloses another similar collection device for separating debris by size and/or weight, also for collecting a specific particle size range teaches that the capture part (7) for the particles desired to be collected includes a microplastic capture filters (29-31) surrounded by the microplastic capture part and comprising through-holes with a size of a predetermined range (each bag having different sized through holes/pores to collect different sized debris). Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally provide the capture part of Kim with similar filter(s) having specific sized holes/pores to further separate the collected debris if/when desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 10 July 2026
Prosecution Insights